Okay - I haven't watched the comparison as I just now watched the newly released trailer.
This looks like it could be so cool, but I agree w/Octo's earlier comment about the shaky cam, if it's like that throughout the whole movie I don't know if I will be able to watch it!
1) the original trailer. Sure, most of that takes place before things "go awry," but it's reasonable footage.
2) the trailer is obviously put together for maximum tease/concealment. There've got to be something like twelve cuts every five seconds, and each cut is enhanced with video noise. The cuts are obviously there to conceal the good stuff from the fanboys going frame-by-frame on them. (J.J. Abrams has talked about this; how Lost had to be carefully made so as to avoid looking bad in frame-by-frame study. Best example is the polar bear in the pilot; they spent $30 grand just to fix those ten frames). I've already seen enhanced blowups and slowdowns of the glimpse of the monster behind the building (from about 2/3 of the way through trailer 2). This trailer was totally made for those maniacs to pore over. (I mean, look what I did! superimposing frames and shit. But I never said I wasn't one of those maniacs.)
3) If you watch carefully you'll realize the cuts (as I'm discussing) are far more prevalent than anything involving shaking except, say, in the helicopter).
4) After Blair Witch, they just wouldn't be that dumb. I think they fully understand the dangers of a handheld-DV-based movie (unlike Blair Witch, which is a 100% analog "Hi-8" video/16mm Pan-X movie).
Cool - I kind of did think that maybe they had focused on this for the trailer to make it really compelling.
I didn't go through quite as much thought process, thank goodness I can rely on you for that Jordan! :)
November 26, 2007 5:26 PM
[Image] In between the original Cloverfield trailer (which debuted in front of Transformers) and the new, longer one (which is currently showing in front of Beowulf) the filmmakers have apparently been re-working a lot of the effects. The "Statue of Liberty's head tumbling down Broadway" shot, in particular, has been re-done; I made a comparison to show the difference between the old and the new versions of the shot (from the trailers posted at Apple). (Click on the link and then mouse-over to see the more recent version of the same frame.)
Basically the scale has been corrected, more detail and texture have been added, and the lighting environment is more faithful to the surrounding geometry and illumination. Interestingly, the modeling and animation are identical during the first half of the shot (the head spinning through the air); the handoff to the new model occurs during the motion-blur (which is coordinated with the jumping cars). The debris is re-animated as well; the yellow cab in the extreme background (that breaks the head's fall) is revealed to be CGI along with a couple of the other cars (since they don't flip the same way). It's not often that one gets to do a direct comparison, frame by frame, of two "drafts" of the same piece of SFX in this way; for the 0.1% of the population who are as interested in this stuff as I am, it's a fascinating object lesson.
""Oh my God! Oh my God! Oh my God!""
3 Comments -
Okay - I haven't watched the comparison as I just now watched the newly released trailer.
This looks like it could be so cool, but I agree w/Octo's earlier comment about the shaky cam, if it's like that throughout the whole movie I don't know if I will be able to watch it!
November 25, 2007 8:28 AM
I'm convinced it's not like that.
Why am I so convinced:
1) the original trailer. Sure, most of that takes place before things "go awry," but it's reasonable footage.
2) the trailer is obviously put together for maximum tease/concealment. There've got to be something like twelve cuts every five seconds, and each cut is enhanced with video noise. The cuts are obviously there to conceal the good stuff from the fanboys going frame-by-frame on them. (J.J. Abrams has talked about this; how Lost had to be carefully made so as to avoid looking bad in frame-by-frame study. Best example is the polar bear in the pilot; they spent $30 grand just to fix those ten frames). I've already seen enhanced blowups and slowdowns of the glimpse of the monster behind the building (from about 2/3 of the way through trailer 2). This trailer was totally made for those maniacs to pore over. (I mean, look what I did! superimposing frames and shit. But I never said I wasn't one of those maniacs.)
3) If you watch carefully you'll realize the cuts (as I'm discussing) are far more prevalent than anything involving shaking except, say, in the helicopter).
4) After Blair Witch, they just wouldn't be that dumb. I think they fully understand the dangers of a handheld-DV-based movie (unlike Blair Witch, which is a 100% analog "Hi-8" video/16mm Pan-X movie).
November 25, 2007 11:37 AM
Cool - I kind of did think that maybe they had focused on this for the trailer to make it really compelling.
I didn't go through quite as much thought process, thank goodness I can rely on you for that Jordan! :)
November 26, 2007 5:26 PM